Not saying you’re wrong, but praising the giant robot attack on New York before swerving into critiquing the latter half of the movie for being ridiculous is a funny juxtaposition.
A fictional story should follow its own rules. Let’s take “The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly.” The idea that someone would let himself be hung, trusting the other guy to be able to make that incredible shot over and over and never miss, is nonsensical. But we in the audience accept that premise for the sake of the story. We’d be disappointed if, halfway through the movie, an orchestra appears in the middle of the desert and they do a big musical number.
“Sky Captain” was ridiculous because of the way the story kept shifting and the rules kept changing.
I admit that I saw Sky Captain once, many many years ago, so I’m not going to be able to back this up with too many specific citations, but you’ve also not said specifically what rule they set up and fail to follow, so we’re even.
It’s a pastiche of pulp fiction concepts from the 30s-50s. Giant robots, airships, Nazi scientists, Shangri-La, dinosaurs, android assassins, the works. The whole thing is like a loving homage to Doc Savage’s greatest hits. I don’t see how any of that “breaks rules”.
Like I said, I won’t dispute your overall finding of the film being, “meh”. I watched it once 20 years ago and haven’t gone back since, so I’m not exactly leaping up to defend it’s execution, but I also think “the rules kept changing” is an empty critique, as it stands currently.
You’re under no obligation to continue the discussion, sure, but it seems disingenuous to me to open a thread saying “Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow is a bad movie because it fails to follow it’s own internal logic”. Then, upon having that assertion challenged, you jump to, “I’m not gonna argue about this.” Like, why comment at all if you’re not interested in discussing, and yes, maybe even defending, your take? Regardless, if that’s not what you’re here to do, have a good day.
“Sky Captain And The World Of Tomorrow.”
The beginning is great. Giant robots attacking New York.
Then it just becomes boring and ridiculous.
Posters promised Angelina Jolie. she shows up for five minutes and doesn’t do anything.
Not saying you’re wrong, but praising the giant robot attack on New York before swerving into critiquing the latter half of the movie for being ridiculous is a funny juxtaposition.
Here’s the way I look at it.
A fictional story should follow its own rules. Let’s take “The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly.” The idea that someone would let himself be hung, trusting the other guy to be able to make that incredible shot over and over and never miss, is nonsensical. But we in the audience accept that premise for the sake of the story. We’d be disappointed if, halfway through the movie, an orchestra appears in the middle of the desert and they do a big musical number.
“Sky Captain” was ridiculous because of the way the story kept shifting and the rules kept changing.
I admit that I saw Sky Captain once, many many years ago, so I’m not going to be able to back this up with too many specific citations, but you’ve also not said specifically what rule they set up and fail to follow, so we’re even.
It’s a pastiche of pulp fiction concepts from the 30s-50s. Giant robots, airships, Nazi scientists, Shangri-La, dinosaurs, android assassins, the works. The whole thing is like a loving homage to Doc Savage’s greatest hits. I don’t see how any of that “breaks rules”.
Like I said, I won’t dispute your overall finding of the film being, “meh”. I watched it once 20 years ago and haven’t gone back since, so I’m not exactly leaping up to defend it’s execution, but I also think “the rules kept changing” is an empty critique, as it stands currently.
I’m not going to argue about a movie neither one of us has seen in over 20 years.
Have fun.
You’re under no obligation to continue the discussion, sure, but it seems disingenuous to me to open a thread saying “Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow is a bad movie because it fails to follow it’s own internal logic”. Then, upon having that assertion challenged, you jump to, “I’m not gonna argue about this.” Like, why comment at all if you’re not interested in discussing, and yes, maybe even defending, your take? Regardless, if that’s not what you’re here to do, have a good day.